The above question wants to assess your ability to read and interpret speeches. In that case, I can't write the text for you, but I'll show you how to do it.
First, you should read Nixon's and Ford's speeches. In this reading, you should identify the objective of the speeches, that is, what Nixon and Ford want to achieve with the themes and topics presented in their speech.
Once you recognize these goals, you can write your text as follows:
- Introduce the main subject of your text.
- Show the objective of Nixon's speech and how that objective is developed during the speech.
- Show the objective of Ford's speech and how that objective is developed during the speech.
- Compare Nixon and Ford speech objectives, show similarities and differences.
- Also, compare the development of this theme and which development was most efficient.
- Show which speech was most likely to achieve the goal.
More information:
brainly.com/question/2285439?referrer=searchResults
Answer:
The author made use of consonance in the poem.
Explanation:
In the poem, "Out Where The West Begins," by Arthur Chapman, the poet applied consonance, a form of alliteration. Consonance is the repetition of consonants anywhere in a set of consecutive words. The consonant, 's', was repeated several times by the poet. This repetition is significant because it creates a form of rhythm that makes the poem enjoyable and helps the reader remember it.
<em>“Out where the handclasp's a little stronger,
</em>
<em>
Out where the smile dwells a little longer,
</em>
<em>
That’s where the West begins;
</em>
<em>
Out where the sun is a little brighter.”</em>
Words used to describe people, items, places, events, or more are called adjectives
Answer:
It is difficult to discern whether individuals can be designated as having good morals when an action is done not because it was moral, but because God has commanded it.
Explanation:
The idea of Theological Volunteerism is that an action has moral value because the action is approved or even recommended by God, through his teachings. In this context, what we as humans might consider as something that is morally right, may be considered in opposition to God's will or even deemed as irrelevant since it was not taught by God of certain religions as a morally right action that their follower should take.
A great example of this would be the idea of slaughtering some farm animals under the name of God for it to be consumed by the followers of the religion, even though it means that the method used to kill these animals is more inhumane. To the followers of the religion, this action is morally right since God has commanded it to be so; to those who aren't followers of the religion, it is a horrific and morally wrong action.
